Page 20 of 23

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:01 am
by greeneyed
The Rickman wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:42 am
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:38 am
Actually, the answer was, everything is included. Which is the best form of any consumption tax. Food was only exempted after negotiations in the Senate to pass legislation.
If it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
Why?

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:07 am
by The Nickman
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 11:01 am
The Rickman wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:42 am
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:38 am
Actually, the answer was, everything is included. Which is the best form of any consumption tax. Food was only exempted after negotiations in the Senate to pass legislation.
If it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
Why?
Because you shouldn't tax people on basic necessities to live! Income taxes should be abolished completely and you charge people on their spending, not their earning. Basic human necessities like food, electricity and water should be exempt, so the lowest income demographics can still survive.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:12 am
by papabear
Sterlk wrote:
May 19, 2019, 9:09 pm
papabear wrote:
May 19, 2019, 5:14 pm
Imo this is garbage for one the senate is less representative the house of reps due to state vote distortion with nsw voting in 6 senators and Tasmania also have long 6 senators. Which let’s be honest the smaller states ( tas / sa) do seem to do a bit more greens and labor then the states with people (except for our friendly victorians).
All other things being equal - I'd probably agree that the smaller states should have less Senate seats to make geographic seat distribution more equal for the population they have. I was referring to proportional representation by ideology, though.

The Greens are probably the best example; they get around 10% of the vote nationally, and they don't get 10% of the seats in the House. They get 1, which these days makes 0.66%. Parties like One Nation also poll not-insignificantly, yet you won't find them with a presence.

Around 25% of voters select a non-major party/candidate as their first preference in the House; in 2016 something like 3.3% of HoR seats went to a non-major. In the Senate, if the ABC's predictions above are accurate, that'll be ~20% of seats going to non-majors - you'll never get an exact match, but it's a fair whack closer to representing the entire spectrum of opinions.
I see your point but I disagree with it.

The greens for example if they finish with 9 or 10 seats thats more then 10% of the 76 seats.

Equally the fair right divided amongst 4 or so parties get about the same amount of the vote yet might end up with 2, 3 or 4 seats.

Now I am sure if the far right One nation / Cory / United Australia ended up with 10 seats you would think it is a joke.

The simple fact is 9/10 people dont want the far left or far right with any power and to be honest I agree with this. Otherwise if non vaccine gets a percent you would be asking for those loonies to get a seat.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:13 am
by papabear
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 11:01 am
The Rickman wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:42 am
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:38 am
Actually, the answer was, everything is included. Which is the best form of any consumption tax. Food was only exempted after negotiations in the Senate to pass legislation.
If it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
Why?
All food is processed its just the amount of process.

Pasta for example is quite processed, quite a lot goes into making pasta.

Having things in and out of the GST does two bad things, makes it more complicated and generates less revenue.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:40 am
by The Nickman
papabear wrote:
May 20, 2019, 11:13 am
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 11:01 am
The Rickman wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:42 am
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:38 am
Actually, the answer was, everything is included. Which is the best form of any consumption tax. Food was only exempted after negotiations in the Senate to pass legislation.
If it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
Why?
All food is processed its just the amount of process.

Pasta for example is quite processed, quite a lot goes into making pasta.

Having things in and out of the GST does two bad things, makes it more complicated and generates less revenue.
I mean raw ingredients. For a struggling family, you can make some pasta, meat and vegetables go a very long way, you shouldn't be taxed on that, in my opinion.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:48 am
by greeneyed
The Rickman wrote:
May 20, 2019, 11:07 am
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 11:01 am
The Rickman wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:42 am
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:38 am
Actually, the answer was, everything is included. Which is the best form of any consumption tax. Food was only exempted after negotiations in the Senate to pass legislation.
If it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
Why?
Because you shouldn't tax people on basic necessities to live! Income taxes should be abolished completely and you charge people on their spending, not their earning. Basic human necessities like food, electricity and water should be exempt, so the lowest income demographics can still survive.
If you tax one form of consumption, why not another. If you want to tax prepared food, or packaged food, why not other food?

The numbers probably don't add up on your plan... unless you're prepared to make massive cuts to welfare payments and other government spending or have a massive GST rate (no country in the world would have such a high rate). Income tax raises $332 billion, income tax on individuals $218b. GST only raises $67b. The GST exemption on food costs about $8b (this is already focused on basic food groups, and doesn't include restaurant and take away food, and confectionary and other "goodies"). So even adding that in, you could raise $75b in GST now. But every exemption you make you undermines that tax base. So you abolish income tax... you will need a very, very big GST rate.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-08/ ... c-services

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:50 am
by The Nickman
Then that's what I'll do, smart guy.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:53 am
by greeneyed
I'm glad you're not in control then! ;)

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:58 am
by Northern Raider
Haha, that Hewson interview should be compulsory viewing for anybody aspiring to public office (I'm talking about the Mike Willesee one, not the chocolate royal smashing one). If somebody asks you a simple question give them a simple answer. Whether its actually answering the question or not is irrelevant.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 11:59 am
by Botman
T_R wrote:
May 20, 2019, 9:13 am
PigRickman wrote:
May 19, 2019, 9:09 pm
it'll have to be one hell of an orator to successfully sell that sort of message. Good luck waiting on that historical giant to appear.
Not really. Think about the GST. Hewson tried to implement it, but constantly stumbled. Remember him being asked to calculate the GST on a cake...? " Well, it depends if there's a sales tax on it now, or...or...if there's a sales tax on a component of it or how's it's iced..." or whatever it was. Bang, election gone.

Contrast to Howard a few years later, on the same 'gotcha' moment; "None. It's food. Next question?"

Unpopular (no one likes a new tax) policy, thoughtfully implemented but most of all, well explained.

It's possible, but wasn't for as limited a person as Shorten.

EDIT: Watch a man die, live on TV:


That was before my time, boy... that's not great. :lol:

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 1:54 pm
by T_R
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:38 am
Actually, the answer was, everything is included. Which is the best form of any consumption tax. Food was only exempted after negotiations in the Senate to pass legislation.
I do believe you are correct.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 20, 2019, 3:58 pm
by Northern Raider
T_R wrote:
May 20, 2019, 1:54 pm
greeneyed wrote:
May 20, 2019, 10:38 am
Actually, the answer was, everything is included. Which is the best form of any consumption tax. Food was only exempted after negotiations in the Senate to pass legislation.
I do believe you are correct.
More so negotiating with the Democrats. Some claim it was the beginning of the end for that party.

The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 21, 2019, 12:45 pm
by gangrenous
gangrenous wrote:So, what do we think for tomorrow? Libs to hold on and Plibersek to take the reigns as opposition leader?
Plibersek has withdrawn I see. There goes my second leg.

Makes sense. Too tied up in this campaign and given where they lost Albo makes more sense. Poor pick by me.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 21, 2019, 1:53 pm
by Northern Raider
gangrenous wrote:
May 21, 2019, 12:45 pm
gangrenous wrote:So, what do we think for tomorrow? Libs to hold on and Plibersek to take the reigns as opposition leader?
Plibersek has withdrawn I see. There goes my second leg.

Makes sense. Too tied up in this campaign and given where they lost Albo makes more sense. Poor pick by me.
....yet we see Chris Bowen announce he will run. That would be a classic double down on their loss if the ALP elected hom.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 21, 2019, 4:36 pm
by -TW-
Interesting that Jim Chalmers has put his hand up

Relatively unknown, no real backstory to him as far as I can see

I reckon they could do worse, especially if they're looking to start fresh

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 21, 2019, 5:57 pm
by Manbush
The Rickman wrote:
May 19, 2019, 9:33 am
Make no mistake people, yesterday’s result was a great one for our nation. Australia pretty much overwhelmingly said NO to racism.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
After seeing where the swings were it looks like more Australians said yes to racism than in previous years, while they may not have won seats their votes unfortunately increased which got the Libs over the line.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 21, 2019, 7:38 pm
by Green eyed Mick
Manbush wrote:
May 21, 2019, 5:57 pm
The Rickman wrote:
May 19, 2019, 9:33 am
Make no mistake people, yesterday’s result was a great one for our nation. Australia pretty much overwhelmingly said NO to racism.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
After seeing where the swings were it looks like more Australians said yes to racism than in previous years, while they may not have won seats their votes unfortunately increased which got the Libs over the line.
A bloke who boycotted the National apology, another who hangs out with Reclaim Australia and Malcolm Roberts were all re-elected, some of them on bigger margins.

On top of that, one party proposed a suite of policies to address a range of issues that would bring this country closer to meaningful reconciliation and the other has a policy of dismissing concerns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people as 'culture wars'.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 21, 2019, 7:59 pm
by Northern Raider
-TW- wrote:
May 21, 2019, 4:36 pm
Interesting that Jim Chalmers has put his hand up

Relatively unknown, no real backstory to him as far as I can see

I reckon they could do worse, especially if they're looking to start fresh

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
You might be right. A completely fresh start wouldn't be a bad tact. Appears to have no baggage from the Rudd/Gillard leadership coups and no close ties to Shorten.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 21, 2019, 8:26 pm
by Manbush
Green eyed Mick wrote:
May 21, 2019, 7:38 pm
Manbush wrote:
May 21, 2019, 5:57 pm
The Rickman wrote:
May 19, 2019, 9:33 am
Make no mistake people, yesterday’s result was a great one for our nation. Australia pretty much overwhelmingly said NO to racism.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
After seeing where the swings were it looks like more Australians said yes to racism than in previous years, while they may not have won seats their votes unfortunately increased which got the Libs over the line.
A bloke who boycotted the National apology, another who hangs out with Reclaim Australia and Malcolm Roberts were all re-elected, some of them on bigger margins.

On top of that, one party proposed a suite of policies to address a range of issues that would bring this country closer to meaningful reconciliation and the other has a policy of dismissing concerns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people as 'culture wars'.
Even that Stuart Bonds "the only thing worse than a gay person is a woman" prick while not winning a seat got a ton
of votes.

This election was anything but a demonstration of Australian decency.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 8:53 am
by Manbush
Looks like we’re following the American path where the uneducated bogans vote conservative and the more educated vote progressive.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... MP=soc_567

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 9:00 am
by Sterlk
papabear wrote:
May 20, 2019, 11:12 am
I see your point but I disagree with it.

The greens for example if they finish with 9 or 10 seats thats more then 10% of the 76 seats.

Equally the fair right divided amongst 4 or so parties get about the same amount of the vote yet might end up with 2, 3 or 4 seats.

Now I am sure if the far right One nation / Cory / United Australia ended up with 10 seats you would think it is a joke.

The simple fact is 9/10 people dont want the far left or far right with any power and to be honest I agree with this. Otherwise if non vaccine gets a percent you would be asking for those loonies to get a seat.
To be fair, the LNP self-describe as a broad-tent. There's people representing centrist values, like your Malcolm Turnbulls, all the way to your Cory Bernardis on the right.

Whatever exists on the left seems quite equally matched on the right by a combination of Bernardi + One Nation + Conservative LNP. There's pretty much just the one political brand on the far-left, there's a multitude of them competing for the far-right vote.

The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 9:08 am
by The Nickman
“AUSTRALIA ISN’T RIGHT-WING, IT’S CAUTIOUS”

REALLY good article by Waleed Aly here, and sums up almost perfectly why people like voted the way we did.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/opin ... ction.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 10:23 am
by Manbush
Yet it ignores the fact votes for the far right increased and got the Libs over the line through preferences. The swing to those far right groups looks to have come from previous Labor voters so they didn’t go the “cautious” Liberal option.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 10:40 am
by The Nickman
Manbush wrote:
May 22, 2019, 10:23 am
Yet it ignores the fact votes for the far right increased and got the Libs over the line through preferences. The swing to those far right groups looks to have come from previous Labor voters so they didn’t go the “cautious” Liberal option.
See this is a garbage argument, these people would've voted Liberal anyway.

At the end of the day, Labor lost the mine workers, who have traditionally ALWAYS voted Labor due to Union influence... but this time around, Labor and the Greens were perceived to be anti-mining. Rightly or wrongly, people voted with the perception that if Labor got in, they may lose their jobs.

That's huge for 99% of people.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 11:36 am
by papabear
Sterlk wrote:
May 22, 2019, 9:00 am
papabear wrote:
May 20, 2019, 11:12 am
I see your point but I disagree with it.

The greens for example if they finish with 9 or 10 seats thats more then 10% of the 76 seats.

Equally the fair right divided amongst 4 or so parties get about the same amount of the vote yet might end up with 2, 3 or 4 seats.

Now I am sure if the far right One nation / Cory / United Australia ended up with 10 seats you would think it is a joke.

The simple fact is 9/10 people dont want the far left or far right with any power and to be honest I agree with this. Otherwise if non vaccine gets a percent you would be asking for those loonies to get a seat.
To be fair, the LNP self-describe as a broad-tent. There's people representing centrist values, like your Malcolm Turnbulls, all the way to your Cory Bernardis on the right.

Whatever exists on the left seems quite equally matched on the right by a combination of Bernardi + One Nation + Conservative LNP. There's pretty much just the one political brand on the far-left, there's a multitude of them competing for the far-right vote.
Agree with everything your saying and more parties does make it harder for that persuasion.

I am just not sure that it is good for our country for the fringe element being represented whereby they have the balance of power in the senate.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 11:41 am
by papabear
Manbush wrote:
May 22, 2019, 8:53 am
Looks like we’re following the American path where the uneducated bogans vote conservative and the more educated vote progressive.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... MP=soc_567
The thing is the liberals arent aiming for the conservative they aimed for the middle.

Read up on all the labor articles they are now commentating on how they have to resist the urge to move to the middle and stay progressive.

If labor could have a economic conservative who didnt have redistribution type policies they could have a long term in govt and do all sorts of progressive stuff on the social side with respect to minority rights, persecuted communities, drug legalisation and all sorts of things.

But as soon as they let there union / communist type agenda get into the narrative they start to lose their way.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 12:06 pm
by Northern Raider
The Rickman wrote:
May 22, 2019, 10:40 am
Manbush wrote:
May 22, 2019, 10:23 am
Yet it ignores the fact votes for the far right increased and got the Libs over the line through preferences. The swing to those far right groups looks to have come from previous Labor voters so they didn’t go the “cautious” Liberal option.
See this is a garbage argument, these people would've voted Liberal anyway.

At the end of the day, Labor lost the mine workers, who have traditionally ALWAYS voted Labor due to Union influence... but this time around, Labor and the Greens were perceived to be anti-mining. Rightly or wrongly, people voted with the perception that if Labor got in, they may lose their jobs.

That's huge for 99% of people.
Thats a key point and one of the reasons Labor are beginning to struggle in their former blue collar heartlands. They have shifted from a party representing traditional union values to one thats trying to appease the Greens and it's socialist agenda.

Playing this class warfare against the "top end of town" is no longer working as most of the blue collar workers are up in the higher wage brackets now. Labor now act like champions of the minimum wage earners and welfare recipients. As a result a lot of those traditional Labor supporters now relate more to the LNP policies, particularly in this last election.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 12:15 pm
by papabear
Northern Raider wrote:
May 22, 2019, 12:06 pm
The Rickman wrote:
May 22, 2019, 10:40 am
Manbush wrote:
May 22, 2019, 10:23 am
Yet it ignores the fact votes for the far right increased and got the Libs over the line through preferences. The swing to those far right groups looks to have come from previous Labor voters so they didn’t go the “cautious” Liberal option.
See this is a garbage argument, these people would've voted Liberal anyway.

At the end of the day, Labor lost the mine workers, who have traditionally ALWAYS voted Labor due to Union influence... but this time around, Labor and the Greens were perceived to be anti-mining. Rightly or wrongly, people voted with the perception that if Labor got in, they may lose their jobs.

That's huge for 99% of people.
Thats a key point and one of the reasons Labor are beginning to struggle in their former blue collar heartlands. They have shifted from a party representing traditional union values to one thats trying to appease the Greens and it's socialist agenda.

Playing this class warfare against the "top end of town" is no longer working as most of the blue collar workers are up in the higher wage brackets now. Labor now act like champions of the minimum wage earners and welfare recipients. As a result a lot of those traditional Labor supporters now relate more to the LNP policies, particularly in this last election.
This so much this.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 12:20 pm
by The Nickman
It's evident up here in Queensland that absolutely NOBODY in the mining industry voted Labor, and those guys have always been dyed-in-the-wool Labor voters.

Extraordinary stuff that Labor decided to go against the very industry that probably would've delivered them government in the past.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 1:45 pm
by Northern Raider
The Rickman wrote:
May 22, 2019, 12:20 pm
It's evident up here in Queensland that absolutely NOBODY in the mining industry voted Labor, and those guys have always been dyed-in-the-wool Labor voters.

Extraordinary stuff that Labor decided to go against the very industry that probably would've delivered them government in the past.
CFMEU have been natural enemies of the LNP for so long it's really just a habit for them to campaign against the coalition and support the ALP. It's somewhat ironic that on a policy level their members are better off under the current government.

If the LNP quietly held out an olive branch to the various unions and backed off on their own attacks you might see a subtle shift in future campaigns. I'm not saying the unions would back the LNP but they might scale back their support for the ALP if they recognise there's no real advantage in a Labor government.

Of course all this goes away if Labor actively distance themselves from the Greens and more socialist policies.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 1:59 pm
by The Nickman
I actually read a pretty interesting article the other day that most of the progressive social changes in Australian society have occurred on the Liberal/conservative parties’ watch. While Labor agitates about it, they never actually get anything done, and the Libs just quietly make it happen when they’re in power

I’ll post the article when I get back in from lunch if I can find it. Will be interesting to see GeM, gangy and Manbush’s heads explode at the very least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 3:57 pm
by Northern Raider
The Rickman wrote:
May 22, 2019, 1:59 pm
I actually read a pretty interesting article the other day that most of the progressive social changes in Australian society have occurred on the Liberal/conservative parties’ watch. While Labor agitates about it, they never actually get anything done, and the Libs just quietly make it happen when they’re in power

I’ll post the article when I get back in from lunch if I can find it. Will be interesting to see GeM, gangy and Manbush’s heads explode at the very least.
Assume that will be around 9pm and you'll be maggoted.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 4:01 pm
by The Nickman
Here's the article itself:

https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election ... 51p34.html

To hit some of the high notes here:

- The United Australia Party under Herbert Payne made voting compulsory; Australia is among only a handful of nations where voting is mandatory.

- Under the Menzies administration in 1962, voting rights were extended to Indigenous Australians. Granted this was horribly late, but that was an indictment on the nation not the conservative party.

- Harold Holt deserves a notable mention; in 1967 he held a referendum on the right for Indigenous Australians to be counted in the census.

- The Liberal Party was also the first political party to have an Indigenous person in Parliament. Neville Bonner joined the Senate and served in the Liberal Party for 12 years.

- Malcolm Fraser established SBS, accepted Vietnamese refugees after the war and strongly opposed apartheid.

- John Gorton introduced a parliamentary motion from the Opposition supporting the legalisation of same-gender sexual relations.

- John Howard enacted reform on guns.

- Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Liberal Party passed laws legalising gay marriage. Many will say there was an issue with the process but, as it stands, the "right" side of government passed the bill on same-sex marriage not the "left".

The Australian "right" has passed nation-changing laws that were not part of its mandate as a conservative party. It did so because the Liberal and Nationals coalition understands what is right for Australia. On countless occasions the "right" of Australia has followed a moral compass and passed legislation more progressive then the "left" in many other countries.

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 4:09 pm
by Northern Raider
Must have kicked you out of the pub early

Re: The Politics Thread 2019

Posted: May 22, 2019, 4:32 pm
by Northern Raider
The Rickman wrote:
May 22, 2019, 4:01 pm
Here's the article itself:

https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election ... 51p34.html

To hit some of the high notes here:

- The United Australia Party under Herbert Payne made voting compulsory; Australia is among only a handful of nations where voting is mandatory.

- Under the Menzies administration in 1962, voting rights were extended to Indigenous Australians. Granted this was horribly late, but that was an indictment on the nation not the conservative party.

- Harold Holt deserves a notable mention; in 1967 he held a referendum on the right for Indigenous Australians to be counted in the census.

- The Liberal Party was also the first political party to have an Indigenous person in Parliament. Neville Bonner joined the Senate and served in the Liberal Party for 12 years.

- Malcolm Fraser established SBS, accepted Vietnamese refugees after the war and strongly opposed apartheid.

- John Gorton introduced a parliamentary motion from the Opposition supporting the legalisation of same-gender sexual relations.

- John Howard enacted reform on guns.

- Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Liberal Party passed laws legalising gay marriage. Many will say there was an issue with the process but, as it stands, the "right" side of government passed the bill on same-sex marriage not the "left".

The Australian "right" has passed nation-changing laws that were not part of its mandate as a conservative party. It did so because the Liberal and Nationals coalition understands what is right for Australia. On countless occasions the "right" of Australia has followed a moral compass and passed legislation more progressive then the "left" in many other countries.
Reading he comment is interesting. There's a lot of backlash about ignoring the topic of climate change. To quote the most recent which is fairly typical:
"I'm not sure that Labor is any better than Liberal, but at least they acknowledge climate change and had policies to address it. "

This is a total misconception I can only assume come from ingorance. The LNP clearly has policies around this, which is made very clear on their website. https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/environment

This is not as heavy as the ALP policy but it still exists. To claim otherwise is just plain wrong.